CharlieDigital said:
How about this, then. I expect them to do their job and protect the law of the land from infringement and shut down programs that violate it. Instead, they make new law that no one can change except for themselves, and even then, they cry "precedent."
Commerce Clause: GONZALES. The use of medicinal marijuana that you grow yourself violates interstate commerce. Give me a fucking break. Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer. Scalia, too, because he's an authoritarian bastard.
2nd: Don't even get me started. Heller was limp-wristed.
5th: KELO. The use of eminent domain to take from one person to give to another for economic development? Great. Need I go on with more, or is listing something recent and wholly repugnant enough?
8th: Minor point, but your team thinks cruel and unusual means whatever they think is cruel and unusual.
9th: This is where the worst abuses happen. The people have whatever rights we say they do. The Constitution says whatever we say it does. The Supremacy Clause means that no lesser government can defy us.
10th: Doesn't exist. The States exist to serve their master, the Federal Government, which has whatever power it says it does.
I expect them to protect the second. I expect them to be able to read well enough to understand that they, the federal government, have zero authority to legislate anything with regards to abortion policy outside of what is explicitly federal territory.
I generally think that because of the societal acceptance of marijuana (just look at mass media like the movies and TV shows), in the next 10-20 years, we're going to see a shift in how this issue is treated. But to imagine that a right leaning SCOTUS would actually help the cause? I don't know; it seems entirely counter intuitive to me.
